Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd vs General Electric Co on 7 October, 1993
Hence, in our view in addition to narrower
meaning given to the term 'public policy' in Renusagar case [Renusagar
Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644] it is
required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently
illegal".
The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
Section 5 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs Saw Pipes Ltd on 17 April, 2003
In ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. [(2003) 5 SCC 705] this Court after
examining the grounds on which an award of the arbitrator can be set aside
under Section 34 of the Act has said: (SCC p. 727, para 31)
"31. ... However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in
violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest.
Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the
administration of justice.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Basant Nahata on 7 September, 2005
104. What would be a public policy would be a matter which would
again depend upon the nature of transaction and the nature of statute. For
the said purpose, the pleadings of the parties and the materials brought on
record would be relevant so as to enable the court to judge the concept of
what was a public good or public interest or what would otherwise be
injurious to the public good at the relevant point as contradistinguished
by the policy of a particular government. (See State of Rajasthan v.
Basant Nahata [(2005) 12 SCC 77].)"
The Arbitration Act, 1940
Mcdermott International Inc vs Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors on 12 May, 2006
19. Here again, the Division Bench has committed a grave error. Hudson's
formula as is quoted in McDermott's case is as follows: